Leica Users: Rigid 50/2 Summicron or Nikkor 50/1.4 Sonnar?
I have an early 50/1.4 Nikkor in LTM that I've
been shooting off and on with an M3. It's a
Sonnar design, supposedly optimized for work
close in and wide open -- what I typically do.
For illustration, I've posted a sample from my
Nikkor (at f/2) here in the APUG forums:
Hopefully you can see the images. If not, register for free and then you can view them.
I agree a collapsable Summicron will not be as sharp as a current rigid Summicron but I would say, as someone who has used both and owns a 50mm Summicron current model that the 50mm Summicron is far sharper than a 50mm 1.4 Nikkor. In fact you would need to be careful using a 50mm Summicron for sensitive portraits of the fairer sex, they my not thank you for it's searching images
__________________
"The Future is not what it used to be"
Regards Kenneth
Last edited by kennethcooke; 10-27-2008 at 04:20 PM.
There are a number of variations in the Summicron. The original Collapsible used Thorium glass, then moved to something less radioactive. The Collapsible, Type I Rigid, and Dual-Range Summicron where 7 elements in 6 groups. Lower contrast, high resolution. The Type 2 Rigid went to 6 elements in 5 groups, a bit higher contrast than the older ones. Finally, the Summicrons went to 6 elements in 4 groups- Same as the 1930s Summar. It is higher contrast, probably sharper. But many users prefer the "look" of the older glass.
Price-wise, the Collapsible Summicron and Type 2 Summicron can be had in the $300~$400 range for a nice one. The Type 1 Rigid goes for a bit more, and the recent ones are in the $1000 and above range.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Don suggests the Nikkor is the
sharper, Kenneth gives the nod
to the Summicrons.
I guess, in the end, I like the look
of the negatives from the Nikkor
and so I should leave well enough
alone and focus my efforts on
shooting, not equipment. I just
wish it were more compact.
Talking about sharpness really is pretty counterproductive since the word really has no meaning.
Acutance, resolution, sure.
Intuitively, there IS a distinction,
and THAT is pretty subjective. Unless you, Kenneth, and I know each other,
there isn't much useful information we can share.
(I actually think that the two lenses aren't comparable,
yet they are complimentary !)
Sometime, borrow / rent an old Summicron, give it a spin.
When you say the lenses aren't comparable,
but complementary, that is the beginning of
what I was trying to fathom in this thread -- how do the two lenses differ? And I was
grateful to have your thoughts on that. But
you are right, that subtleties of lens performance
being what they are, language often fails to
provide a satisfactory medium for the explanation.
And scans of negatives viewed on a computer
screen do very little to illuminate.
I have always questioned Dante Stella's comments that the Nikon RF 50/1.4 was "optimized" for up close shooting.... In all my years of reading and camera collecting - I have never heard that comment elsewhere. While I understand Nikon allowed the lens to focus closer than normal, it was uncoupled from the Rangefinder camera's focusing ability - so I am not sure that argument stands up. Any know more about this ?
Leica Users: Rigid 50/2 Summicron or Nikkor 50/1.4 Sonnar? 
Linear Mode
